◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled “The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge“, provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections or hacked the servers at the DNC.

Let’s start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We’re talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check out this clip from the report:

Assange …. has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a non-state player. …

ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party

HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails — can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia…

ASSANGE: Yes.

HANNITY: … or anybody associated with Russia?

ASSANGE: We — we can say and we have said repeatedly… over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party…

Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public’s right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would deliberately lie just to protect Russia’s reputation?

No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: “No where in the Intelligence Community’s Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia and WikiLeaks.” The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn’t involved is because Russia wasn’t involved. There’s nothing more to it than that.

As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:

(Murray) “flew to Washington, D.C. for emails….He claims he had a clandestine hand-off … near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers’ motivation was ‘disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the ’tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders’…

Murray says: ‘The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks’. ‘Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,’ Murray insists.” ….

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

‘I don’t understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn’t true,’ he said. ‘Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that.”

(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails“, Daily Mail)

Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness?

There’s one way to find out, isn’t there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he’s telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now.

But that’s not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It’s like they don’t exist.

Why? Why hasn’t the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?

Could it be because Assange and Murray’s knowledge of the facts doesn’t coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn’t that what’s really going on? Isn’t Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called “The crime of the century”?

Here’s something else from the report that’s worth mulling over:

“It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks.” (“The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge”, Skip Folden)

This is a crucial point, so let’s rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It’s that simple.

ORDER IT NOW

But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers?

Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?

The only logical explanation is that there’s no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.

According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have “high confidence’ that Russia was involved.

Okay, but where’s the proof? You can’t expect to build a case against a foreign government and a sitting president with just “high confidence”. You need facts, evidence, proof. Where’s the beef?

We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case. That’s odd enough, but what’s even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC’s servers so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What’s that all about? Here’s an excerpt from the report:

“The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.

The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.

3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.

4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA….”

( “The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)

Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI’s negligence in this case goes beyond anything I’ve ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they’re blocked at the door by the victim’s roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door, the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But “don’t worry”, says the obstructing roommate, “I’ve already photographed the whole thing and I’ll send you the pictures as soon as I get the chance.”

Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?

Never! They’d kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene, and start digging-around for clues. That’s what they’d do. And yet we are supposed to believe that in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked by Russia?

The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven’t they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions?

It’s a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI’s behavior, is that they’ve been told to “stand down” so they don’t unwittingly expose the truth about what’s really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

Here’s another interesting clip from the report:

“Adam Carter: …the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. … CrowdStrike’s failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed.”

Read that excerpt over again. It’s mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing, no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don’t have a disk image, then what do you have?

You have nothing, that’s what. Which means that everything we’ve read is 100 percent conjecture, not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr and the goofy Russian lawyer?

Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously?

The investigation started off with grave allegations of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!

What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.

A few words about the ICA Report

Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it’s conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America’s finest.

Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:

“Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. … Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” …

What the authors are saying is that, ‘Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney because it’s all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.’

Isn’t that what they’re saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors openly admit that their grasp of what happened is “incomplete or fragmentary” and they have no “proof” of anything?

Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best when he said: “This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by the intelligence community. … does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually actively manipulate the election process.”

Like we said, it’s all baloney.

Lastly, Folden’s report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that “The alleged “hack” was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the “hack” precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance.” In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were “Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive.” (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.)

The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:

“There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system.” (“A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack”, Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)

Bingo.

Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces and produced the first hard evidence that “the official narrative implicating Russia” is wrong. This is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal the truth. Skip Folden’s report is an important contribution to that same effort.

Note: Skip Folden is a Private Intelligence analyst and a retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology. His report has been submitted to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the Office of Special Council (Robert Mueller), and the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. The report was released on September 13, 2017

In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn ‘anti-Semitism’ scandal. Murry writes:

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding £40,000 in damages and the High Court has approved over £100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons’ lawyer. I may become liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.

Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof, meaning that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs, when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in Britain for this very reason.

Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of proof in libel cases in Britain (sic - Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution although your use of the wòrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).

Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained of were defamatory so at least some genetal damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically) rich plaintiff starts proceedjngs which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.

Then there is the defence of "fair comment on a matter of public inteŕest" which is available to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.

Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.

Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or has that been settled by an apology - which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?

I am intrigued by the £100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified..... except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only £40,000!

Finally....can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site so the First Amendment should look after us.

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps (“hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.

I don’t know why so many people were so enamored of Barack Obama, except that it seemed to be an opportunity to get the USA beyond racism or the charge of racism opportunistically made by so many enemies of the USA. Myself, when Obama had just been selected for his Senate seat – in preference to Jesse Jackson, Jr. – I did a “background check” on Obama, and it wasn’t even close: I had to conclude that Barack was born into a family of CIA operatives and that he had inherited (or been chosen for) membership in that club, which must be many times larger than most Americans would like to think. (“Yes, Virginia, there is a secret government.”) Yes, he was chosen because it was certainly known that he was ‘safe’. So I never expected too much of Obama, and I wasn’t disappointed.

In any event, Obama becoming POTUS did clear the air for a while, and maybe he could have made some minor changes for the better (at least from the “progressive” POV), except that he was stopped dead in his tracks by partisan petty politics from the elections of 2010 forward. For example, closing Gitmo: Obama made a good-faith try for that but it was stopped dead in its tracks by (and for) petty partisan opposition (and MSM made sure that Obama took the blame for that failure). Same for ratification of the New START. These legislative events, plus the almost-events of bills that very narrowly fell short only because of the cloture rule, are often forgotten in evaluating the Obama years, which must necessarily include an evaluation of Congress during that administration.

Of course, the mother of all bills that fell short was Medicare-for-All, in the form of the “public option.” Now you may say that I am forgetting such a bill never went anywhere and was never voted on. But we should note that when Democrat leadership made their head-count, anything that might look like Medicare-for-All invariably fell short of the required cloture super-majority of 60 (usually by just one vote), so they considered that what with polls showing strong public support, they could bring it back in the 112th and win. And yes, you could also say that they could have used the “nuclear option” to destroy the Cloture Rule, but that was made impossible by Senator Robert Byrd’s presence in the Senate – not that he was against the Public Option but that he was going to defend to the death the Cloture Rule. And even when Byrd died (28 June 2010), his ghost continued to exert a powerful influence on Senate Democrats. Of course, Obama clearly was on the side of (working for) the FIRE lobby, but he had said that if Congress would send him a bill including the Public Option, he would sign it, which he would have but he did not think that he would ever be put to that test. Probably, Obama actually believed that passing any medical insurance bill that included universal coverage (including prior existing conditions) was what was important, to him, personally, because of something he had promised to his mother on her death bed.

Here’s url to a paper, The Origin and Demise of the Public Option — in case you have forgotten the bloody details of the battle:

So YES, considering all this history, it’s a brilliant no-brainer to title the book (to which Whitney is a contributor) Hopeless about the Obama years and the Democrats.

Myself, I would also add to the list of what must be considered, the quiet (almost secret) visit in May 2012 to the White House by both Bush junior and Bush senior, ostensibly to view a painting but more likely to ask (during the private meeting of Obama with the two ex-presidents) the permission of Bush senior, as godfather of the Secret Government (the guys who do the assassinations and also the guys to whom Obama owed his first allegiance, since childhood) to run for a second term.

That’s my take on the 111th Congress, the last congress that has looked like it might be a strong and independent functioning legislative branch. All this time, of course, being careful not to ruffle any feathers of the Secret Government (like with a real 9-11 investigation) and careful to at least substantially oblige the MIC regarding appropriations but very far from today’s neocon anti-Russia campaign (recall ratification of New Start).

So what am I saying? I am saying that it looks to me like Congress, until 2012/2013, was still trying to be Congress, and Obama was still trying to look like an Executive who was interested in making the old constitutional order function — albeit within the bounds imposed upon the system by the MIC and the Secret Government. Bernie Sanders is still trying to bring that politics from 2008/2009 back to life, but of course that politics – whether alive or dead – encompasses some pretty glaring contradictions.

The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA. What sources? What relationships? What facts?

Obama is a paragon of Fraud. His story should serve as an inoculation against any sweet-promises "hope" representing the Democratic Party. He is a war criminal and a soldout to the banksters: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/18/after-failing-prosecute-bankers-obama-cashes-wall-street-speeches"Less than a year has passed since he departed from the White House, and former President Barack Obama has already joined the "well trod and well paid" Wall Street speaking circuit, a decision many argued will negatively impact the Democratic Party's credibility as it attempts to fashion a message around taking on corporate monopolies, tackling income inequality, and loosening the insurance industry's control over the American healthcare system. "This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration."

The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it’s (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America’s finest.

Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: “It is highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So this can safely be dismissed as bullshit.”

People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person only a few months earlier.

The only rational explanation for the FBI’s behavior, is that they’ve been told to “stand down” so they don’t unwittingly expose the truth about what’s really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

I’m not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear and greed.

Sorry, but those in the position (or those who collaborate with them) to squelch information of such magnitudes are not on our side, they are not the American people, and they don't value the truth or the interests of the American people. They are sociopaths, self-serving and morally void. They act in their own perceived interests, and the interests of the Republic be damned, justice and honesty likewise.

Yes, the cumulative weight of all of their lies, misdirections, and dissimulations may very well test the viability of the U.S.; but if you think that this possibility troubles these amoral monsters even one whit, well then I am afraid that you are greatly mistaken.

Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.

"We can force through any lie. It just has to be big enough so that a normal person says, 'Well that cannot be a lie!'. Then the lie cannot be recognized as such. And the lie has to be repeated continuously. Then it is believed and is powerful because it is the belief in a 'truth.'"

- from 'Propaganda', by Zionist Jew, Edward Bernays

There has been no bigger lie than the laughable '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'

Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System’s Narrative) more fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.

They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher’s Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting on a table in front of their eyes.

Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government officials can’t keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening, as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.

We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust, and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.

View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you’ll be the rush.

It’s exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based, and it has been working.

All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their grip.

I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.

In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They’re mostly either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can’t find a crime being committed right in front of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this “Russian hacking”, this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

"...this article does not provide any evidence..."You mean, the surreal behavior of the FBI does not bother you at all? The Federal Bureau of Investigation was never allowed to take a peek at the DNC computers and to ask questions to those who had the first-person knowledge of the events. You certainly need to learn the stories of Seth Rich and of Imran Awan & family, as well as about the amazing expertise of the experts at the Atlantic Council, including Mr. Eliot Higgins (a former seller of ladies’ underwear) and the CrowdStrike hero Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, a Jew from Moscow. Mr. Alpertovitch is the person who gave the fancy names to the alleged hackers (like “Fancy Bears” - for people who lack imagination), and Alpertovitch was the chosen one (the only one) to look at the DNC computers. Again, what is the job description of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? How come that there was an announcement to award money to those who could help with solving the murder of the former DNC staffer Seth Rich, but this announcement was not from the Democratic party donors? Instead, the Democratic Party donors rushed to provide defense to Imran Awan. That is, the Democrats want to protect the person guilty of the GREATEST breach in the national cybersecurity, but they are not interested -- at all -- in the investigation of the murder of Seth Rich, the former DNC staffer, who was involved in the infamous DNC email story.

It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based, and it has been working.

All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their grip.

I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise - which is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.

In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.

I can’t remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond’s revelations either recently.

So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.

Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.

It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly, both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and ISIS.

We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international shipping containers.

“There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016,” said Gillibrand. “We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country.”

Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY machines etc.)

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this “Russian hacking”, this article does not provide any evidence against.

Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don’t know what country you come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.

Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.

That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.

At least she's still alive.

So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.

Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.

It’s the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg’s except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly, both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and ISIS.

We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic “pouch” immunity. The USSR did its industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan’s Diaries on the ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international shipping containers.

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this “Russian hacking”, this article does not provide any evidence against.

Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.

Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

You want us to reverse the burden of proof

First, I never claimed that. It was the author’s claim that he was “disproving” it. Second, it’s not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The “burden of proof” only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn’t dead, you know.

First, I never claimed that. It was the author’s claim that he was “disproving” it.

In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word 'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system, simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn’t dead, you know.

He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However--and rather tellingly--Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to Wikileaks whatsoever.

And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray for cooperating with Wikileaks.

in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the american public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue now.
not that politicians weren’t liars before the act. but today they have cover.
remember james clapper’s lies on tv?
but he also lied to congress. congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares it; congress funds it; congress can end it.
the bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.

I’m not even a close follower of the “Russian hacking” theory, or whatever the hell it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC’s skivvies.

Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.

I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's skivvies.

Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth’s family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won’t do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son’s death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth’s family actually disgusts me.

CalDre, thanks. This whole story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.

We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then, instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e., Russian intelligence, squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?

Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt the organization that's betrayed him.

As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to me a pile of horse dung.

First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

First, I never claimed that. It was the author’s claim that he was “disproving” it.

In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word ‘disprove’ to mean that the other side had failed to prove it’s case. But in our legal system, simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it’s case is quite sufficient to get your man acquitted. You don’t have to have proof positive of your man’s innocence, so long as the prosecution has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney’s semantic gaffe here doesn’t change that fundamental fact.

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn’t dead, you know.

He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it’s true he never mentions Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich’s murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it’s hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to Wikileaks whatsoever.

And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but then again, it could just as well be the system’s way of signalling its displeasure with Murray for cooperating with Wikileaks.

Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest online controversy he helped stoke.

Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms confirmed that he was an “early player.” But he has been blocked from many rooms because of his “wild claims,” one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...]But Microchip, who described himself as an “atheist liberal that just hates immigration” and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump’s base.

“Conservatives are generally morons,” he said. “It’s like herding cats.”

He’s just as frank about what he’s peddling to Trump supporters.

“You know how I know they’re spreading lies?” Microchip asked one die-hard this week. “Because I do the same thing, it’s fake news and spin.”
[...]
Lotan said Microchip’s claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.

“The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition,” Lotan said. “But the boomers will not go to 4chan.”

People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity from “brain dead” Trump supporters.

Microchip · @Microchip
Don’t be bad at this, Space lady, I’m not asking for anyone to do anything illegal here, I’m asking for @voxday’s info so I can send the police to his home and have him arrested for hate crimes.

Messing with and attacking the Alt Right and its friends and allies is highly risky and can come at a high price, since the Alt Right has many tech-savvy autists in its ranks, a phenomenon known as “weaponized autism”, because they will skillfully, digitally retaliate and defend themselves and their friends and allies:

Slightly off topic, but MicroChip was also the driving force behind the currently third-most popular White House petition:

Formally recognize AntiFa as a terrorist organizationCreated by M.A. on August 17, 2017

Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims”. This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. AntiFa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States. It is time for the pentagon to be consistent in its actions – and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare AntiFa a terror group – on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.

Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.

CalDre, thanks. This whole story stinks badly, and the “Russian hack” blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.

We’re asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC’s computers. Then, instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e., Russian intelligence, squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?

Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt the organization that’s betrayed him.

As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to me a pile of horse dung.

"organising" is a big and comprehensive word for what you say the CIA did in relation to Allende. Chile is and was no banana republic. What do you really know about Chile and how Allende came to be shot? (I am not suggesting that the CIA took a hands off attitude to Chile at the time any more than the KGB did).

This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies, that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!

In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding £40,000 in damages and the High Court has approved over £100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons’ lawyer. I may become liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.

Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof, meaning that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs, when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in Britain for this very reason.

Somebody's after Craig Murray big-time.

Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution although your use of the wòrd “innocence” suggests that you may be).

Here’s how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained of were defamatory so at least some genetal damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant’s costs) the defendant had several possible avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called “stop writs” where a (typically) rich plaintiff starts proceedjngs which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.

Then there is the defence of “fair comment on a matter of public inteŕest” which is available to the defendant even if he can’t prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can’t succeed if the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.

Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.

Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn’t cut the defamatory remarks. Or has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn’t be usual for Sky would it?

I am intrigued by the £100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified….. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only £40,000!

Finally….can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site so the First Amendment should look after us.

I don't know why so many people were so enamored of Barack Obama, except that it seemed to be an opportunity to get the USA beyond racism or the charge of racism opportunistically made by so many enemies of the USA. Myself, when Obama had just been selected for his Senate seat - in preference to Jesse Jackson, Jr. - I did a "background check" on Obama, and it wasn't even close: I had to conclude that Barack was born into a family of CIA operatives and that he had inherited (or been chosen for) membership in that club, which must be many times larger than most Americans would like to think. ("Yes, Virginia, there is a secret government.") Yes, he was chosen because it was certainly known that he was 'safe'. So I never expected too much of Obama, and I wasn't disappointed.

In any event, Obama becoming POTUS did clear the air for a while, and maybe he could have made some minor changes for the better (at least from the "progressive" POV), except that he was stopped dead in his tracks by partisan petty politics from the elections of 2010 forward. For example, closing Gitmo: Obama made a good-faith try for that but it was stopped dead in its tracks by (and for) petty partisan opposition (and MSM made sure that Obama took the blame for that failure). Same for ratification of the New START. These legislative events, plus the almost-events of bills that very narrowly fell short only because of the cloture rule, are often forgotten in evaluating the Obama years, which must necessarily include an evaluation of Congress during that administration.

Of course, the mother of all bills that fell short was Medicare-for-All, in the form of the "public option." Now you may say that I am forgetting such a bill never went anywhere and was never voted on. But we should note that when Democrat leadership made their head-count, anything that might look like Medicare-for-All invariably fell short of the required cloture super-majority of 60 (usually by just one vote), so they considered that what with polls showing strong public support, they could bring it back in the 112th and win. And yes, you could also say that they could have used the "nuclear option" to destroy the Cloture Rule, but that was made impossible by Senator Robert Byrd's presence in the Senate - not that he was against the Public Option but that he was going to defend to the death the Cloture Rule. And even when Byrd died (28 June 2010), his ghost continued to exert a powerful influence on Senate Democrats. Of course, Obama clearly was on the side of (working for) the FIRE lobby, but he had said that if Congress would send him a bill including the Public Option, he would sign it, which he would have but he did not think that he would ever be put to that test. Probably, Obama actually believed that passing any medical insurance bill that included universal coverage (including prior existing conditions) was what was important, to him, personally, because of something he had promised to his mother on her death bed.

Here's url to a paper, The Origin and Demise of the Public Option -- in case you have forgotten the bloody details of the battle:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.full

So YES, considering all this history, it's a brilliant no-brainer to title the book (to which Whitney is a contributor) Hopeless about the Obama years and the Democrats.

Myself, I would also add to the list of what must be considered, the quiet (almost secret) visit in May 2012 to the White House by both Bush junior and Bush senior, ostensibly to view a painting but more likely to ask (during the private meeting of Obama with the two ex-presidents) the permission of Bush senior, as godfather of the Secret Government (the guys who do the assassinations and also the guys to whom Obama owed his first allegiance, since childhood) to run for a second term.

That's my take on the 111th Congress, the last congress that has looked like it might be a strong and independent functioning legislative branch. All this time, of course, being careful not to ruffle any feathers of the Secret Government (like with a real 9-11 investigation) and careful to at least substantially oblige the MIC regarding appropriations but very far from today's neocon anti-Russia campaign (recall ratification of New Start).

So what am I saying? I am saying that it looks to me like Congress, until 2012/2013, was still trying to be Congress, and Obama was still trying to look like an Executive who was interested in making the old constitutional order function -- albeit within the bounds imposed upon the system by the MIC and the Secret Government. Bernie Sanders is still trying to bring that politics from 2008/2009 back to life, but of course that politics - whether alive or dead - encompasses some pretty glaring contradictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=2SX3ut6sWsA

And now we are in the age of Trump --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O0vCQcZybQ&t=345s

The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found by your “background checks” on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA. What sources? What relationships? What facts?

"What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA. What sources? What relationships? What facts?" -- Wizard of Oz

I'm sorry to have to say that my computer used back then, more than ten years ago, died on me and I did not save anything from the HD (disc) memory. Here's what I can tell you, including some facts and relationships, and even some links -- but not a critical source from 2004-2007, although I can describe that source for you.

Here's what I did for my background check:

In or about 2004, I became interested in Obama because he had been selected (over, e.g., Jesse Jackson, Jr.) to run as a Democrat for the open seat in the U.S. Senate. Wikipedia:

The 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois was held on November 2, 2004. Incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald decided to retire after one term. The Democratic and Republican primary elections were held in March, which included a total of 15 candidates who combined to spend a record total of over $60 million seeking the open seat.

State Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic primary and Jack Ryan won the Republican primary. Three months later, Ryan announced his withdrawal from the race ... Six weeks later, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee chose former Diplomat Alan Keyes to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate. The election was the first for the U.S. Senate in which both major party candidates were African American. Obama's 43% margin of victory was the largest in the state history of U.S. Senate elections.. The inequality in the candidates spending for the fall elections – $14,244,768 by Obama and $2,545,325 by Keyes – is also among the largest in history in both absolute and relative terms

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but to me that backgrounder on the Illinois 2004 election could have been headlined, "PATH CLEARED FOR OBAMA". So I wondered, who is this chosen son, Barack Obama? In that frame of mind, I looked up Barack Obama at Wikipedia, There, I found a link to a corporation that had provided Obama's first job directly after graduation at HLS, I followed the link to the corporation's webpage, where it was stated that the corporation was connected with the CIA.

(No one knows how many "private" corporations have been created and funded by the CIA. For example, I have read, in an aviation magazine article, that not only was Evergreen Airline a CIA entity but also a combination of CIA airlines had driven all other private small airlines in USA out of business.)

Unfortunately, as acknowledged supra, I lost the crucial links about Barack's first job after HLS, and current Wiki article on him skips directly from graduation from HLS to "attorney and professor, and taught at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004."

You can find much pertinent information on Obama's father, his mother and his step father.

Wiki on Ann Durham, Barack's mother:

" ... received master of arts (1974) and PhD (1992) degrees, also in anthropology.... she created microcredit programs while working as a consultant for the United States Agency for International Development. Dunham was also employed by the Ford Foundation in Jakarta and she consulted with the Asian Development Bank in Gujranwala, Pakistan." -- Wikipedia

Here again, as for my sources to support my interpretation of the facts, call me a conspiracy theorist, but to me this all reeks of CIA (USAID, Ford Foundation, ADB). Moreover, a friend who dropped out as a grad student at the anthropology department of a prestigious university once informed me that he had quit after being informed by the head of the department that if he wanted to advance at all, he had to accept the opportunity to work with (for) the CIA. CIA operates and recruits extensively in major universities, especially anthropology departments, because these people have beautiful cover in developing nations -- places like Pakistan, Egypt. Nigeria, Bolivia and Honduras.

(Source: FU) I had a source for the information about CIA infiltration of anthropology departments, but that was word of mouth. For all such general and unverifiable sources, I'd like to use a special terminology to designate this kind of thing: "(Source: FU)"

Also, check out for yourself about Ann Durham, especially her years in Indonesia. Or Obama's father, his history back in Kenya.

BTW: I intend no insult to Obama's family -- especially not to his mother -- when I conclude that they were all CIA operatives. As for Obama Sr., I cannot begin to judge him for the deal that he made back in the days of Kenya's very early independence from the UK. (Source: FU) Same, but also with big differences for Barack's step-father: he made his deal in the context of a brutal and corrupt military dictatorship, Indonesia, and he was most likely a double agent. (Source: FU) Who am I to judge?

I am not saying that Obama's mother was a CIA 'Agent', because "Agent" is a special category of the CIA, a special status even, akin to being a commissioned officer in the uniformed services. What I am saying is that they were what I think are called "cut-outs" -- because they are 'cut out' of the herd to be given special opportunities. (Source: FU) Ann Dunham, being originally from Kansas and a solid middle-class background would be perfect, because 'cut outs' were (are) approached -- if they happen(ed) to be Americans -- on the basis of an appeal to their patriotism. (Source:FU) Often, I think, in Ann Dunham's time, they were hipsters with a taste for the exotic and for excitement: they were hipsters who read Hemingway, e.g., "Islands in the Stream". with the final section being an account of the hero's last years serving as a clandestine operative in anti-submarine intelligence and warfare, in Cuba, in 1941. You know, everybody loves a good spy novel. It's fun. (Source: FU)

What was it that I was to prove? Oh, yeah.

"I did a “background check” on Obama ... I had to conclude that Barack was born into a family of CIA operatives and that he had inherited (or been chosen for) membership in that club, which must be many times larger than most Americans would like to think. (“Yes, Virginia, there is a secret government.”) ... So I never expected too much of Obama, and I wasn’t disappointed." -- Grandpa

"anti-censorship" Twitter alternative "gab.ai" discovers the dangers of using Australia during the current Western pro-censorship hysteria.

https://twitter.com/julianassange/status/909862513097003008

Remember this entire hysteria and censorship campaign has been based and built upon this single incident:

Again, this is just my highly amateurish investigation of what could have happened during those few fateful and tragic moments on that day in Charlottesville. But I believe it is extremely important and worth it to look into and consider all of these details and possibilities, since so much is at stake, e.g., possibly the First Amendment.

In a democracy, more transparency into the machinations of government is better than less transparency, as long as national security is not compromised. Whoever opened the sleazy, duplicitous operations of the DNC to public scrutiny should be rewarded. I hope we eventually identify the perpetrator so we can pin a well-deserved medal on him.

Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.

Yawn. Another fake ‘Nazi’ reference.

You’ve been highly misled.

Goebbels & Hitler referred to the Big Lie as a tactic by Jews.

“We can force through any lie. It just has to be big enough so that a normal person says, ‘Well that cannot be a lie!’. Then the lie cannot be recognized as such. And the lie has to be repeated continuously. Then it is believed and is powerful because it is the belief in a ‘truth.’”

- from ‘Propaganda’, by Zionist Jew, Edward Bernays

There has been no bigger lie than the laughable ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’

The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA. What sources? What relationships? What facts?

Grandpa Charlie gets the facts from the radio receivers implanted in his teeth.

I don't know why so many people were so enamored of Barack Obama, except that it seemed to be an opportunity to get the USA beyond racism or the charge of racism opportunistically made by so many enemies of the USA. Myself, when Obama had just been selected for his Senate seat - in preference to Jesse Jackson, Jr. - I did a "background check" on Obama, and it wasn't even close: I had to conclude that Barack was born into a family of CIA operatives and that he had inherited (or been chosen for) membership in that club, which must be many times larger than most Americans would like to think. ("Yes, Virginia, there is a secret government.") Yes, he was chosen because it was certainly known that he was 'safe'. So I never expected too much of Obama, and I wasn't disappointed.

In any event, Obama becoming POTUS did clear the air for a while, and maybe he could have made some minor changes for the better (at least from the "progressive" POV), except that he was stopped dead in his tracks by partisan petty politics from the elections of 2010 forward. For example, closing Gitmo: Obama made a good-faith try for that but it was stopped dead in its tracks by (and for) petty partisan opposition (and MSM made sure that Obama took the blame for that failure). Same for ratification of the New START. These legislative events, plus the almost-events of bills that very narrowly fell short only because of the cloture rule, are often forgotten in evaluating the Obama years, which must necessarily include an evaluation of Congress during that administration.

Of course, the mother of all bills that fell short was Medicare-for-All, in the form of the "public option." Now you may say that I am forgetting such a bill never went anywhere and was never voted on. But we should note that when Democrat leadership made their head-count, anything that might look like Medicare-for-All invariably fell short of the required cloture super-majority of 60 (usually by just one vote), so they considered that what with polls showing strong public support, they could bring it back in the 112th and win. And yes, you could also say that they could have used the "nuclear option" to destroy the Cloture Rule, but that was made impossible by Senator Robert Byrd's presence in the Senate - not that he was against the Public Option but that he was going to defend to the death the Cloture Rule. And even when Byrd died (28 June 2010), his ghost continued to exert a powerful influence on Senate Democrats. Of course, Obama clearly was on the side of (working for) the FIRE lobby, but he had said that if Congress would send him a bill including the Public Option, he would sign it, which he would have but he did not think that he would ever be put to that test. Probably, Obama actually believed that passing any medical insurance bill that included universal coverage (including prior existing conditions) was what was important, to him, personally, because of something he had promised to his mother on her death bed.

Here's url to a paper, The Origin and Demise of the Public Option -- in case you have forgotten the bloody details of the battle:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/6/1117.full

So YES, considering all this history, it's a brilliant no-brainer to title the book (to which Whitney is a contributor) Hopeless about the Obama years and the Democrats.

Myself, I would also add to the list of what must be considered, the quiet (almost secret) visit in May 2012 to the White House by both Bush junior and Bush senior, ostensibly to view a painting but more likely to ask (during the private meeting of Obama with the two ex-presidents) the permission of Bush senior, as godfather of the Secret Government (the guys who do the assassinations and also the guys to whom Obama owed his first allegiance, since childhood) to run for a second term.

That's my take on the 111th Congress, the last congress that has looked like it might be a strong and independent functioning legislative branch. All this time, of course, being careful not to ruffle any feathers of the Secret Government (like with a real 9-11 investigation) and careful to at least substantially oblige the MIC regarding appropriations but very far from today's neocon anti-Russia campaign (recall ratification of New Start).

So what am I saying? I am saying that it looks to me like Congress, until 2012/2013, was still trying to be Congress, and Obama was still trying to look like an Executive who was interested in making the old constitutional order function -- albeit within the bounds imposed upon the system by the MIC and the Secret Government. Bernie Sanders is still trying to bring that politics from 2008/2009 back to life, but of course that politics - whether alive or dead - encompasses some pretty glaring contradictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=2SX3ut6sWsA

And now we are in the age of Trump --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O0vCQcZybQ&t=345s

Obama is a paragon of Fraud. His story should serve as an inoculation against any sweet-promises “hope” representing the Democratic Party. He is a war criminal and a soldout to the banksters: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/18/after-failing-prosecute-bankers-obama-cashes-wall-street-speeches
“Less than a year has passed since he departed from the White House, and former President Barack Obama has already joined the “well trod and well paid” Wall Street speaking circuit, a decision many argued will negatively impact the Democratic Party’s credibility as it attempts to fashion a message around taking on corporate monopolies, tackling income inequality, and loosening the insurance industry’s control over the American healthcare system. “This is a really crappy thing to do to the people who poured their hearts into his campaigns and administration.”

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.

“…this article does not provide any evidence…”
You mean, the surreal behavior of the FBI does not bother you at all?
The Federal Bureau of Investigation was never allowed to take a peek at the DNC computers and to ask questions to those who had the first-person knowledge of the events. You certainly need to learn the stories of Seth Rich and of Imran Awan & family, as well as about the amazing expertise of the experts at the Atlantic Council, including Mr. Eliot Higgins (a former seller of ladies’ underwear) and the CrowdStrike hero Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, a Jew from Moscow. Mr. Alpertovitch is the person who gave the fancy names to the alleged hackers (like “Fancy Bears” – for people who lack imagination), and Alpertovitch was the chosen one (the only one) to look at the DNC computers.
Again, what is the job description of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
How come that there was an announcement to award money to those who could help with solving the murder of the former DNC staffer Seth Rich, but this announcement was not from the Democratic party donors? Instead, the Democratic Party donors rushed to provide defense to Imran Awan. That is, the Democrats want to protect the person guilty of the GREATEST breach in the national cybersecurity, but they are not interested — at all — in the investigation of the murder of Seth Rich, the former DNC staffer, who was involved in the infamous DNC email story.

Give the left wing media and other sources great credit, by giving intensive coverage to the fake Russian hacking story they were and still are able to divert attention from the real story. That would be the corrupt Clinton Foundation and all the misdeeds Hillary perpetrated while Secretary of State. The past misdeeds of Hillary and Bill dating back to their time in Arkansas, unfortunately have been swept into the dustbins of history, so it would seem.

“anti-censorship” Twitter alternative “gab.ai” discovers the dangers of using Australia during the current Western pro-censorship hysteria.

"anti-censorship" Twitter alternative "gab.ai" discovers the dangers of using Australia during the current Western pro-censorship hysteria. https://t.co/CuZPApKyHc

— Julian Assange

Remember this entire hysteria and censorship campaign has been based and built upon this single incident:

Again, this is just my highly amateurish investigation of what could have happened during those few fateful and tragic moments on that day in Charlottesville. But I believe it is extremely important and worth it to look into and consider all of these details and possibilities, since so much is at stake, e.g., possibly the First Amendment.

Somehow the commenting software did not display Julian Assange's Twitter status properly. I had the same problem before. This just seems to happen to Julian Assange's tweets, it is a conspiracy ha, ha, ha ;-)

I just left a comment on your “The Myth of American Meritocracy” article, which contained a link to a tweet by Julian Assange. When I published the comment everything looked fine in the moderation stage, but when the comment went public/online a blockquote was put around parts of the comment beginning from where I inserted the Twitter link

Thank you for the article.
I agree with 95+% of it, and in no part with the primary thesis.

Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?

There’s this saying, in the original Star Trek, (some pointy-eared, green-blooded alien, I think, says) ‘if all other viable options have been exhausted’, (or something like that)…

What are the alternative explanations for the way the ‘Russia story’ has been played out by the (innumerable) US ‘intelligence/security’ agencies and their propaganda agencies (the mainstream and other media)?

We need to start working on alternative methods for ‘awakening’ those who can’t see what is very obvious to the small minority paying at least some minimal attention to such things, the US/’western’ governments are fundamentally dysfunctionally and utterly corrupt!

"anti-censorship" Twitter alternative "gab.ai" discovers the dangers of using Australia during the current Western pro-censorship hysteria.

https://twitter.com/julianassange/status/909862513097003008

Remember this entire hysteria and censorship campaign has been based and built upon this single incident:

Again, this is just my highly amateurish investigation of what could have happened during those few fateful and tragic moments on that day in Charlottesville. But I believe it is extremely important and worth it to look into and consider all of these details and possibilities, since so much is at stake, e.g., possibly the First Amendment.

Somehow the commenting software did not display Julian Assange’s Twitter status properly. I had the same problem before. This just seems to happen to Julian Assange’s tweets, it is a conspiracy ha, ha, ha

I just left a comment on your “The Myth of American Meritocracy” article, which contained a link to a tweet by Julian Assange. When I published the comment everything looked fine in the moderation stage, but when the comment went public/online a blockquote was put around parts of the comment beginning from where I inserted the Twitter link

The only rational explanation for the FBI’s behavior, is that they’ve been told to “stand down” so they don’t unwittingly expose the truth about what’s really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

The same that they were told to "stand down " on the plentiful 9/11 evidence that contradicts the government story (see especially what they were doing down in Florida, Daniel Hopsicker "Welcome to Terrorland" https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0970659164/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1505445435&sr=8-2&keywords=daniel+hopsicker ).

I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear and greed.

Sorry, but those in the position (or those who collaborate with them) to squelch information of such magnitudes are not on our side, they are not the American people, and they don’t value the truth or the interests of the American people. They are sociopaths, self-serving and morally void. They act in their own perceived interests, and the interests of the Republic be damned, justice and honesty likewise.

Yes, the cumulative weight of all of their lies, misdirections, and dissimulations may very well test the viability of the U.S.; but if you think that this possibility troubles these amoral monsters even one whit, well then I am afraid that you are greatly mistaken.

"We can force through any lie. It just has to be big enough so that a normal person says, 'Well that cannot be a lie!'. Then the lie cannot be recognized as such. And the lie has to be repeated continuously. Then it is believed and is powerful because it is the belief in a 'truth.'"

- from 'Propaganda', by Zionist Jew, Edward Bernays

There has been no bigger lie than the laughable '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'

(Murray) “flew to Washington, D.C. for emails….He claims he had a clandestine hand-off … near American University with one of the email sources.

If by “hand- off” you mean transfer of the emails, that is incorrect. On his blog, Murray explicitly states that the Daily Mail got the story wrong and that he met the leaker but did not act as an intermediary in the transfer of material from the DNC to Wikileaks.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! A point I've been making single-handedly... until now!

But also, if by 'leaker' you mean the primary source, even that is not true, because he says he met an intermediary. Unfortunately, Murray is now being sued [see comment#1]. Friday is the anniversary, more or less, of Murray's clandestine meeting in DC. This year's Sam Adams award is going to Seymour Hersh, and I expect a packed house.

It doesn’t matter if it unravels and unravels. Even as its threads come loose, the Power ties them all over. Sure, it’s more lies, but lies can be perpetuated forever and ever with the myth of ‘searching for the truth’.

It’s like God. There is no proof of God, but those with the Faith follow the logic of “You have prove that God doesn’t exist” than “You have prove God exists”.

Similarly, the Russian Hacksters say it doesn’t matter if there is no proof of collusion. The burden of proof is placed on the other side that has to prove that there was no collusion.

Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?

“organising” is a big and comprehensive word for what you say the CIA did in relation to Allende. Chile is and was no banana republic. What do you really know about Chile and how Allende came to be shot? (I am not suggesting that the CIA took a hands off attitude to Chile at the time any more than the KGB did).

“In World War One it was the propaganda of our side that first made “propaganda” so opprobrious a term. Fouled by close association with “the Hun,” the word did not regain its innocence—not even when the Allied propaganda used to tar “the Hun” had been belatedly exposed to the American and British people. Indeed, as they learned more and more about the outright lies, exaggerations and half-truths used on them by their own governments, both populations came, understandably, to see “propaganda” as a weapon even more perfidious than they had thought when they had not perceived themselves as its real target. Thus did the word’s demonic implications only harden through the Twenties, in spite of certain random efforts to redeem it.”

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.”

“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”

“Whatever of social importance is done today, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda.”

“Like its wartime prototype, the post-war propaganda drive was an immense success, as it persuaded not just businessmen but journalists and politicians that “the manufacture of consent,” in Walter Lippmann’s famous phrase, was a necessity throughout the public sphere.”

Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest online controversy he helped stoke.

Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms confirmed that he was an “early player.” But he has been blocked from many rooms because of his “wild claims,” one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...]
But Microchip, who described himself as an “atheist liberal that just hates immigration” and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump’s base.

“Conservatives are generally morons,” he said. “It’s like herding cats.”

He’s just as frank about what he’s peddling to Trump supporters.

“You know how I know they're spreading lies?” Microchip asked one die-hard this week. “Because I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin.”
[...]
Lotan said Microchip’s claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.

“The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition,” Lotan said. “But the boomers will not go to 4chan.”

People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity from “brain dead” Trump supporters.

Microchip · @Microchip
Don't be bad at this, Space lady, I'm not asking for anyone to do anything illegal here, I'm asking for @voxday's info so I can send the police to his home and have him arrested for hate crimes.

- http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/09/gab-wants-war.html

Vox Day seems to have been picking lots of fights with lots of people in the Alt Right lately, I briefly reported on this:

He has been getting into a Twitter rumble with Vox Day. For the record, I like both Vox Day and Jason Kessler, but I believe, that Jason Kessler is correct and speaking the truth in this debate

Messing with and attacking the Alt Right and its friends and allies is highly risky and can come at a high price, since the Alt Right has many tech-savvy autists in its ranks, a phenomenon known as “weaponized autism”, because they will skillfully, digitally retaliate and defend themselves and their friends and allies:

Slightly off topic, but MicroChip was also the driving force behind the currently third-most popular White House petition:

Formally recognize AntiFa as a terrorist organizationCreated by M.A. on August 17, 2017

Terrorism is defined as “the use of violence and intimidation in pursuit of political aims”. This definition is the same definition used to declare ISIS and other groups, as terrorist organizations. AntiFa has earned this title due to its violent actions in multiple cities and their influence in the killings of multiple police officers throughout the United States. It is time for the pentagon to be consistent in its actions – and just as they rightfully declared ISIS a terror group, they must declare AntiFa a terror group – on the grounds of principle, integrity, morality, and safety.

How does the writers room function for these stories? The NYT is on record about driving the story out of their editorial board meetings, so are other media exemplars following that script? Sometimes they seem flustered or off-message, so in need of a donut and coffee, or a Valium, or whatever the rising young writerlets ingest these days.

Do they follow the Ball-Gag approach? Buncha Life-experience Limited Guys and Gals. Probably not inclusive enough.

" The NYT is on record about driving the story out of their editorial board meetings...."

Do you have a link to that record? Very relevant to allegations being made by a certain disgruntled ponce, Andrew Feinberg, against SputnikInt. (In an interview with Lee Stranahan, Feinberg revealed such a pathetic lack of knowledge on Ukraine, it's no wonder he was fired.) Now three congressmen have written to FCC about censoring Sputnik radio. (Will RT be next?)

The Russian hacking meme may be losing ground, but the beast is lashing out to attack Russian sponsored media. Sputnik radio now has some of the best reporting anywhere. Wonderful interview with William Binney today -

So why doesn’t Trump ORDER the FBI to interview Assange and Murray and ORDER them to get ahold of the DNC servers? Why doesn’t he ORDER the NSA to reveal whatever cyber-trails they claim to have uncovered? And do this while explaining to the American people via “fireside chat” exactly what he’s doing and why? If he meets with opposition or even foot-dragging by the appropriate individuals at NSA and FBI, fire their asses and find federal employees who will obey a Presidential order.

He is allowing himself to “twist slowly in the wind” and clearly this appeasement act is not working. Time to try something new.

If “Drain the Swamp” was an honest slogan, this is the perfect opportunity to begin the process.

"So why doesn’t Trump ORDER the FBI, ... ORDER the NSA ... If he meets with opposition or even foot-dragging by the appropriate individuals at NSA and FBI, fire their asses and find federal employees who will obey a Presidential order. ... If “Drain the Swamp” was an honest slogan, this is the perfect opportunity to begin the process." -- SteveRogers42

FBI and NSA are parts of the Deep State, while CIA (the CIA within the shell CIA) is actually part of the Secret Government, but we do know that the Secret Government doesn't come under the control of the POTUS. (That's been known since, in 1977, Adm. Stansfield Turner -- President Carter's DNI -- tried, unsuccessfully, to order firing of CIA employees. Turner had naively assumed that the Secret Government ran according to chain-of-command rules, but if CIA has a chain-of-command, it's a crime even to discuss it.)

We might have discovered if Deep State entities -- like FBI and NSA -- are accountable to the POTUS, if Gen Michael Flynn were still Trump's National Security Advisor. Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, "Flynn ... briefly served as ... National Security Advisor for President Donald Trump, from January 20 to February 13, 2017. ... Flynn was forced to resign as Trump's National Security Advisor after ... Flynn's tenure of just 24 days."

“In World War One it was the propaganda of our side that first made “propaganda” so opprobrious a term. Fouled by close association with “the Hun,” the word did not regain its innocence—not even when the Allied propaganda used to tar “the Hun” had been belatedly exposed to the American and British people. Indeed, as they learned more and more about the outright lies, exaggerations and half-truths used on them by their own governments, both populations came, understandably, to see “propaganda” as a weapon even more perfidious than they had thought when they had not perceived themselves as its real target. Thus did the word’s demonic implications only harden through the Twenties, in spite of certain random efforts to redeem it.”

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society."

“There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.”

“Whatever of social importance is done today, whether in politics, finance, manufacture, agriculture, charity, education, or other fields, must be done with the help of propaganda.”

“Like its wartime prototype, the post-war propaganda drive was an immense success, as it persuaded not just businessmen but journalists and politicians that “the manufacture of consent,” in Walter Lippmann’s famous phrase, was a necessity throughout the public sphere.”

The source you gave was proved wrong and quoting extensively from the source I gave you isn’t a counterargument, moron

(Murray) “flew to Washington, D.C. for emails….He claims he had a clandestine hand-off … near American University with one of the email sources.

If by "hand- off" you mean transfer of the emails, that is incorrect. On his blog, Murray explicitly states that the Daily Mail got the story wrong and that he met the leaker but did not act as an intermediary in the transfer of material from the DNC to Wikileaks.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! A point I’ve been making single-handedly… until now!

But also, if by ‘leaker’ you mean the primary source, even that is not true, because he says he met an intermediary. Unfortunately, Murray is now being sued [see comment#1]. Friday is the anniversary, more or less, of Murray’s clandestine meeting in DC. This year’s Sam Adams award is going to Seymour Hersh, and I expect a packed house.

How does the writers room function for these stories? The NYT is on record about driving the story out of their editorial board meetings, so are other media exemplars following that script? Sometimes they seem flustered or off-message, so in need of a donut and coffee, or a Valium, or whatever the rising young writerlets ingest these days.

Do they follow the Ball-Gag approach? Buncha Life-experience Limited Guys and Gals. Probably not inclusive enough.

” The NYT is on record about driving the story out of their editorial board meetings….”

Do you have a link to that record? Very relevant to allegations being made by a certain disgruntled ponce, Andrew Feinberg, against SputnikInt. (In an interview with Lee Stranahan, Feinberg revealed such a pathetic lack of knowledge on Ukraine, it’s no wonder he was fired.) Now three congressmen have written to FCC about censoring Sputnik radio. (Will RT be next?)

The Russian hacking meme may be losing ground, but the beast is lashing out to attack Russian sponsored media. Sputnik radio now has some of the best reporting anywhere. Wonderful interview with William Binney today -

So why doesn't Trump ORDER the FBI to interview Assange and Murray and ORDER them to get ahold of the DNC servers? Why doesn't he ORDER the NSA to reveal whatever cyber-trails they claim to have uncovered? And do this while explaining to the American people via "fireside chat" exactly what he's doing and why? If he meets with opposition or even foot-dragging by the appropriate individuals at NSA and FBI, fire their asses and find federal employees who will obey a Presidential order.

He is allowing himself to "twist slowly in the wind" and clearly this appeasement act is not working. Time to try something new.

If "Drain the Swamp" was an honest slogan, this is the perfect opportunity to begin the process.

“So why doesn’t Trump ORDER the FBI, … ORDER the NSA … If he meets with opposition or even foot-dragging by the appropriate individuals at NSA and FBI, fire their asses and find federal employees who will obey a Presidential order. … If “Drain the Swamp” was an honest slogan, this is the perfect opportunity to begin the process.” — SteveRogers42

FBI and NSA are parts of the Deep State, while CIA (the CIA within the shell CIA) is actually part of the Secret Government, but we do know that the Secret Government doesn’t come under the control of the POTUS. (That’s been known since, in 1977, Adm. Stansfield Turner — President Carter’s DNI — tried, unsuccessfully, to order firing of CIA employees. Turner had naively assumed that the Secret Government ran according to chain-of-command rules, but if CIA has a chain-of-command, it’s a crime even to discuss it.)

We might have discovered if Deep State entities — like FBI and NSA — are accountable to the POTUS, if Gen Michael Flynn were still Trump’s National Security Advisor. Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, “Flynn … briefly served as … National Security Advisor for President Donald Trump, from January 20 to February 13, 2017. … Flynn was forced to resign as Trump’s National Security Advisor after … Flynn’s tenure of just 24 days.”

Gramps, I think you are 100% correct about the importance of the Flynn imbroglio. He had been a total MAGA loyalist throughout the campaign...and then ...out the door? Neither of the rationales for his dismissal seemed to hold water to me.

Not only would it NOT be out of line for an 0-9/former DIA Director/incoming Natl. Security Advisor to convey policy messages to a foreign ambassador, it would absolutely be part of his job to do exactly that, if told to do so by the POTUS-elect.

The other "reason" -- that he failed to inform the VP of something in a timely manner -- doesn't ring true at all, because an Intel pro like Flynn is used to operating on a need-to-know basis, and VP's are commonly kept out of the loop. (I recall reading that Truman had never heard of the Manhattan Project until FDR's death.)

Somehow, eliminating Gen. Flynn was a major cog in this whole treasonous takedown attempt against Trump, and whenever pogues like Clapper and Brennan are shoveling out their $#!t, I notice that the DIA seems to be missing from the "Resistance" lineup. Perhaps that agency, for one, remains loyal to the Republic.

It doesn't matter if it unravels and unravels. Even as its threads come loose, the Power ties them all over. Sure, it's more lies, but lies can be perpetuated forever and ever with the myth of 'searching for the truth'.

It's like God. There is no proof of God, but those with the Faith follow the logic of "You have prove that God doesn't exist" than "You have prove God exists".

Similarly, the Russian Hacksters say it doesn't matter if there is no proof of collusion. The burden of proof is placed on the other side that has to prove that there was no collusion.

lies can be perpetuated forever and ever with the myth of ‘searching for the truth’.

,i.It’s like God. There is no proof of God, but those with the Faith follow the logic of “You have prove that God doesn’t exist” than “You have prove God exists”. — Priss Factor

Awesome, PF, just plain awesome.

BTW, as it happens, I know of God’s existence, because He has spoken to me. But that is neither here nor there. And I have no evidence, no audio recording.

Dammit! Another who can't accept even the most logical knock down argument that the Abrahamic Creator God (the one with the big G) can't exist -
all because of that voice. Just what a succeasful author, retired professor, friend said to me. And the late great Jerry Pournelle even told me he was backing Pascal's wager - to which I refrained from crassly asserting that my wager, accordingly, was on polytheism: everyone of the claimant deities simultaneously.

At least please assure us that your G-d hasn't told you to burn any witches or blow up an abortion clinic (though I could have a job for you wrt to a couple of aunts).

The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA. What sources? What relationships? What facts?

Hello, Wizard!

“What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA. What sources? What relationships? What facts?” — Wizard of Oz

I’m sorry to have to say that my computer used back then, more than ten years ago, died on me and I did not save anything from the HD (disc) memory. Here’s what I can tell you, including some facts and relationships, and even some links — but not a critical source from 2004-2007, although I can describe that source for you.

Here’s what I did for my background check:

In or about 2004, I became interested in Obama because he had been selected (over, e.g., Jesse Jackson, Jr.) to run as a Democrat for the open seat in the U.S. Senate. Wikipedia:

The 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois was held on November 2, 2004. Incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald decided to retire after one term. The Democratic and Republican primary elections were held in March, which included a total of 15 candidates who combined to spend a record total of over $60 million seeking the open seat.

State Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic primary and Jack Ryan won the Republican primary. Three months later, Ryan announced his withdrawal from the race … Six weeks later, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee chose former Diplomat Alan Keyes to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate. The election was the first for the U.S. Senate in which both major party candidates were African American. Obama’s 43% margin of victory was the largest in the state history of U.S. Senate elections.. The inequality in the candidates spending for the fall elections – $14,244,768 by Obama and $2,545,325 by Keyes – is also among the largest in history in both absolute and relative terms

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but to me that backgrounder on the Illinois 2004 election could have been headlined, “PATH CLEARED FOR OBAMA”. So I wondered, who is this chosen son, Barack Obama? In that frame of mind, I looked up Barack Obama at Wikipedia, There, I found a link to a corporation that had provided Obama’s first job directly after graduation at HLS, I followed the link to the corporation’s webpage, where it was stated that the corporation was connected with the CIA.

(No one knows how many “private” corporations have been created and funded by the CIA. For example, I have read, in an aviation magazine article, that not only was Evergreen Airline a CIA entity but also a combination of CIA airlines had driven all other private small airlines in USA out of business.)

Unfortunately, as acknowledged supra, I lost the crucial links about Barack’s first job after HLS, and current Wiki article on him skips directly from graduation from HLS to “attorney and professor, and taught at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.”

You can find much pertinent information on Obama’s father, his mother and his step father.

Wiki on Ann Durham, Barack’s mother:

” … received master of arts (1974) and PhD (1992) degrees, also in anthropology…. she created microcredit programs while working as a consultant for the United States Agency for International Development. Dunham was also employed by the Ford Foundation in Jakarta and she consulted with the Asian Development Bank in Gujranwala, Pakistan.” — Wikipedia

Here again, as for my sources to support my interpretation of the facts, call me a conspiracy theorist, but to me this all reeks of CIA (USAID, Ford Foundation, ADB). Moreover, a friend who dropped out as a grad student at the anthropology department of a prestigious university once informed me that he had quit after being informed by the head of the department that if he wanted to advance at all, he had to accept the opportunity to work with (for) the CIA. CIA operates and recruits extensively in major universities, especially anthropology departments, because these people have beautiful cover in developing nations — places like Pakistan, Egypt. Nigeria, Bolivia and Honduras.

(Source: FU) I had a source for the information about CIA infiltration of anthropology departments, but that was word of mouth. For all such general and unverifiable sources, I’d like to use a special terminology to designate this kind of thing: “(Source: FU)”

Also, check out for yourself about Ann Durham, especially her years in Indonesia. Or Obama’s father, his history back in Kenya.

BTW: I intend no insult to Obama’s family — especially not to his mother — when I conclude that they were all CIA operatives. As for Obama Sr., I cannot begin to judge him for the deal that he made back in the days of Kenya’s very early independence from the UK. (Source: FU) Same, but also with big differences for Barack’s step-father: he made his deal in the context of a brutal and corrupt military dictatorship, Indonesia, and he was most likely a double agent. (Source: FU) Who am I to judge?

I am not saying that Obama’s mother was a CIA ‘Agent’, because “Agent” is a special category of the CIA, a special status even, akin to being a commissioned officer in the uniformed services. What I am saying is that they were what I think are called “cut-outs” — because they are ‘cut out’ of the herd to be given special opportunities. (Source: FU) Ann Dunham, being originally from Kansas and a solid middle-class background would be perfect, because ‘cut outs’ were (are) approached — if they happen(ed) to be Americans — on the basis of an appeal to their patriotism. (Source:FU) Often, I think, in Ann Dunham’s time, they were hipsters with a taste for the exotic and for excitement: they were hipsters who read Hemingway, e.g., “Islands in the Stream”. with the final section being an account of the hero’s last years serving as a clandestine operative in anti-submarine intelligence and warfare, in Cuba, in 1941. You know, everybody loves a good spy novel. It’s fun. (Source: FU)

What was it that I was to prove? Oh, yeah.

“I did a “background check” on Obama … I had to conclude that Barack was born into a family of CIA operatives and that he had inherited (or been chosen for) membership in that club, which must be many times larger than most Americans would like to think. (“Yes, Virginia, there is a secret government.”) … So I never expected too much of Obama, and I wasn’t disappointed.” — Grandpa

Thanks. You prompted me to make the obvious Google search, viz. "what were Barack Obama's connections to the CIA. Immediately I recovered the name of Obama's first employer Business International - now subsumed in the Economist Intelligence Unit, which doesn't seem to add up to anything much. See

Description
Product description
The CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House This book covers Barack H. Obama, Jr's rapid rise in American politics and the role that the CIA played in propelling him into the White House. Research is based on formerly classified CIA and State Department files, personal interviews, and international investigations. Obama's birth certificate has never been the issue. The real issue, which affects his eligibility to serve as President of the United States, is his past and likely current Indonesian citizenship. The reader will be taken through the labyrinth of covert CIA operations in Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and other regions. The real history of President Obama, his family, and the CIA quickly emerges as the reader wades into the murky waters of America's covert foreign operations.

That seems to agree with your theory. Do us a favour: read it and evaluate it for us.

And wasn't it convenient that Ryan's ex "decided" to make public various personal pecadillos just in time to force her former husband to drop out of the race? She couldn't have cleared the road for Obama any more effectively if she had been driving a bulldozer. Of course, it is understood that a Hollywood actress who obviously achieved stardom on her acting merits alone,

"What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA. What sources? What relationships? What facts?" -- Wizard of Oz

I'm sorry to have to say that my computer used back then, more than ten years ago, died on me and I did not save anything from the HD (disc) memory. Here's what I can tell you, including some facts and relationships, and even some links -- but not a critical source from 2004-2007, although I can describe that source for you.

Here's what I did for my background check:

In or about 2004, I became interested in Obama because he had been selected (over, e.g., Jesse Jackson, Jr.) to run as a Democrat for the open seat in the U.S. Senate. Wikipedia:

The 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois was held on November 2, 2004. Incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald decided to retire after one term. The Democratic and Republican primary elections were held in March, which included a total of 15 candidates who combined to spend a record total of over $60 million seeking the open seat.

State Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic primary and Jack Ryan won the Republican primary. Three months later, Ryan announced his withdrawal from the race ... Six weeks later, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee chose former Diplomat Alan Keyes to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate. The election was the first for the U.S. Senate in which both major party candidates were African American. Obama's 43% margin of victory was the largest in the state history of U.S. Senate elections.. The inequality in the candidates spending for the fall elections – $14,244,768 by Obama and $2,545,325 by Keyes – is also among the largest in history in both absolute and relative terms

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but to me that backgrounder on the Illinois 2004 election could have been headlined, "PATH CLEARED FOR OBAMA". So I wondered, who is this chosen son, Barack Obama? In that frame of mind, I looked up Barack Obama at Wikipedia, There, I found a link to a corporation that had provided Obama's first job directly after graduation at HLS, I followed the link to the corporation's webpage, where it was stated that the corporation was connected with the CIA.

(No one knows how many "private" corporations have been created and funded by the CIA. For example, I have read, in an aviation magazine article, that not only was Evergreen Airline a CIA entity but also a combination of CIA airlines had driven all other private small airlines in USA out of business.)

Unfortunately, as acknowledged supra, I lost the crucial links about Barack's first job after HLS, and current Wiki article on him skips directly from graduation from HLS to "attorney and professor, and taught at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004."

You can find much pertinent information on Obama's father, his mother and his step father.

Wiki on Ann Durham, Barack's mother:

" ... received master of arts (1974) and PhD (1992) degrees, also in anthropology.... she created microcredit programs while working as a consultant for the United States Agency for International Development. Dunham was also employed by the Ford Foundation in Jakarta and she consulted with the Asian Development Bank in Gujranwala, Pakistan." -- Wikipedia

Here again, as for my sources to support my interpretation of the facts, call me a conspiracy theorist, but to me this all reeks of CIA (USAID, Ford Foundation, ADB). Moreover, a friend who dropped out as a grad student at the anthropology department of a prestigious university once informed me that he had quit after being informed by the head of the department that if he wanted to advance at all, he had to accept the opportunity to work with (for) the CIA. CIA operates and recruits extensively in major universities, especially anthropology departments, because these people have beautiful cover in developing nations -- places like Pakistan, Egypt. Nigeria, Bolivia and Honduras.

(Source: FU) I had a source for the information about CIA infiltration of anthropology departments, but that was word of mouth. For all such general and unverifiable sources, I'd like to use a special terminology to designate this kind of thing: "(Source: FU)"

Also, check out for yourself about Ann Durham, especially her years in Indonesia. Or Obama's father, his history back in Kenya.

BTW: I intend no insult to Obama's family -- especially not to his mother -- when I conclude that they were all CIA operatives. As for Obama Sr., I cannot begin to judge him for the deal that he made back in the days of Kenya's very early independence from the UK. (Source: FU) Same, but also with big differences for Barack's step-father: he made his deal in the context of a brutal and corrupt military dictatorship, Indonesia, and he was most likely a double agent. (Source: FU) Who am I to judge?

I am not saying that Obama's mother was a CIA 'Agent', because "Agent" is a special category of the CIA, a special status even, akin to being a commissioned officer in the uniformed services. What I am saying is that they were what I think are called "cut-outs" -- because they are 'cut out' of the herd to be given special opportunities. (Source: FU) Ann Dunham, being originally from Kansas and a solid middle-class background would be perfect, because 'cut outs' were (are) approached -- if they happen(ed) to be Americans -- on the basis of an appeal to their patriotism. (Source:FU) Often, I think, in Ann Dunham's time, they were hipsters with a taste for the exotic and for excitement: they were hipsters who read Hemingway, e.g., "Islands in the Stream". with the final section being an account of the hero's last years serving as a clandestine operative in anti-submarine intelligence and warfare, in Cuba, in 1941. You know, everybody loves a good spy novel. It's fun. (Source: FU)

What was it that I was to prove? Oh, yeah.

"I did a “background check” on Obama ... I had to conclude that Barack was born into a family of CIA operatives and that he had inherited (or been chosen for) membership in that club, which must be many times larger than most Americans would like to think. (“Yes, Virginia, there is a secret government.”) ... So I never expected too much of Obama, and I wasn’t disappointed." -- Grandpa

Thanks. You prompted me to make the obvious Google search, viz. “what were Barack Obama’s connections to the CIA. Immediately I recovered the name of Obama’s first employer Business International – now subsumed in the Economist Intelligence Unit, which doesn’t seem to add up to anything much. See

Description
Product description
The CIA’s Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House This book covers Barack H. Obama, Jr’s rapid rise in American politics and the role that the CIA played in propelling him into the White House. Research is based on formerly classified CIA and State Department files, personal interviews, and international investigations. Obama’s birth certificate has never been the issue. The real issue, which affects his eligibility to serve as President of the United States, is his past and likely current Indonesian citizenship. The reader will be taken through the labyrinth of covert CIA operations in Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and other regions. The real history of President Obama, his family, and the CIA quickly emerges as the reader wades into the murky waters of America’s covert foreign operations.

That seems to agree with your theory. Do us a favour: read it and evaluate it for us.

Do us a favour: read it [Madsen's book] and evaluate it for us. -- Wizard of Oz

You know, 'Wizard, I am very far from being any kind of contributor here at UR or anywhere else, although I greatly appreciate the comment discussions and sometimes enjoy participating in them. I don't even do FB! Or Gab, which I just heard of for the first time, here at UR. Mainly, I am just an ordinary citizen, except that I was raised to take the duties of citizenship in our Republic seriously. I am a veteran, a citizen, a resident ... and I was born in USA. So I try to stay up to date with politics. I have found UR to be very helpful as a source of news and analysis.

lies can be perpetuated forever and ever with the myth of ‘searching for the truth’.

,i.It’s like God. There is no proof of God, but those with the Faith follow the logic of “You have prove that God doesn’t exist” than “You have prove God exists”. -- Priss Factor

Awesome, PF, just plain awesome.

BTW, as it happens, I know of God's existence, because He has spoken to me. But that is neither here nor there. And I have no evidence, no audio recording.

Dammit! Another who can’t accept even the most logical knock down argument that the Abrahamic Creator God (the one with the big G) can’t exist -
all because of that voice. Just what a succeasful author, retired professor, friend said to me. And the late great Jerry Pournelle even told me he was backing Pascal’s wager – to which I refrained from crassly asserting that my wager, accordingly, was on polytheism: everyone of the claimant deities simultaneously.

At least please assure us that your G-d hasn’t told you to burn any witches or blow up an abortion clinic (though I could have a job for you wrt to a couple of aunts).

Thanks. You prompted me to make the obvious Google search, viz. "what were Barack Obama's connections to the CIA. Immediately I recovered the name of Obama's first employer Business International - now subsumed in the Economist Intelligence Unit, which doesn't seem to add up to anything much. See

Description
Product description
The CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House This book covers Barack H. Obama, Jr's rapid rise in American politics and the role that the CIA played in propelling him into the White House. Research is based on formerly classified CIA and State Department files, personal interviews, and international investigations. Obama's birth certificate has never been the issue. The real issue, which affects his eligibility to serve as President of the United States, is his past and likely current Indonesian citizenship. The reader will be taken through the labyrinth of covert CIA operations in Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and other regions. The real history of President Obama, his family, and the CIA quickly emerges as the reader wades into the murky waters of America's covert foreign operations.

That seems to agree with your theory. Do us a favour: read it and evaluate it for us.

Wizard,

This is so wonderful of you! Thanks very much.

For a while there I thought I was going crazy. Old Grandpa isn’t so crazy after all.

Now, if we could just get about a million ‘liberals’ to read it and spread the word.

How did Grandpa figure it out way back in ‘o4 – ’07, mostly just applying the smell test to a few published facts … and yet nothing about it anywhere in USA’s MSM?

"I still invite you to look harder and assess whether your evidence – and that of the Amazon author – isn’t somewhat slight, if not dodgy… ". -- Wizard to Grandpa

Yes, the evidence is circumstantial, so insufficient for a criminal conviction in a court of law, but adequate in a case that demands only "preponderance" as the standard.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=6363

I have not accused anyone of criminal acts, because it's hardly illegal to cooperate with the CIA: OTOH, it may be illegal NOT to cooperate with the CIA, it could even be highly illegal to reveal anything about the CIA. Especially, it could be highly illegal to "out" any CIA operative. Remember the Valerie Plame affair --

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_grand_jury_investigation

My own little old investigation is an instance of the I Ching's #10, which is translated as "Treading".

JUDGMENT: "Treading upon the tail of the tiger. ... It does not bite the man. Success."

IMAGE: "Thus the enlightened individual ... fortifies the thinking of the people."

BTW: IMO, the various hexagrams are most correctly described, in English, as patterns. In dealing with a mass of circumstantial evidence, we search out patterns, and that is what juries often do, regardless of the judge's instructions that each item of evidence should be treated separately.

A Big Lie can be, often is, hidden under the guise of an ostensibly principled but unending search for truth.

Thanks. You prompted me to make the obvious Google search, viz. "what were Barack Obama's connections to the CIA. Immediately I recovered the name of Obama's first employer Business International - now subsumed in the Economist Intelligence Unit, which doesn't seem to add up to anything much. See

Description
Product description
The CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White House This book covers Barack H. Obama, Jr's rapid rise in American politics and the role that the CIA played in propelling him into the White House. Research is based on formerly classified CIA and State Department files, personal interviews, and international investigations. Obama's birth certificate has never been the issue. The real issue, which affects his eligibility to serve as President of the United States, is his past and likely current Indonesian citizenship. The reader will be taken through the labyrinth of covert CIA operations in Africa, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and other regions. The real history of President Obama, his family, and the CIA quickly emerges as the reader wades into the murky waters of America's covert foreign operations.

That seems to agree with your theory. Do us a favour: read it and evaluate it for us.

Do us a favour: read it [Madsen's book] and evaluate it for us. — Wizard of Oz

You know, ‘Wizard, I am very far from being any kind of contributor here at UR or anywhere else, although I greatly appreciate the comment discussions and sometimes enjoy participating in them. I don’t even do FB! Or Gab, which I just heard of for the first time, here at UR. Mainly, I am just an ordinary citizen, except that I was raised to take the duties of citizenship in our Republic seriously. I am a veteran, a citizen, a resident … and I was born in USA. So I try to stay up to date with politics. I have found UR to be very helpful as a source of news and analysis.

You should know by now that modesty on a UR thread will probably get you only a vigorous jab with an elbow and old-fashioned good manners will earn incredulity - all the while that our host grits his teeth and continues his steadfast maintenance of a safe place for First Amendment freedom.

"So why doesn’t Trump ORDER the FBI, ... ORDER the NSA ... If he meets with opposition or even foot-dragging by the appropriate individuals at NSA and FBI, fire their asses and find federal employees who will obey a Presidential order. ... If “Drain the Swamp” was an honest slogan, this is the perfect opportunity to begin the process." -- SteveRogers42

FBI and NSA are parts of the Deep State, while CIA (the CIA within the shell CIA) is actually part of the Secret Government, but we do know that the Secret Government doesn't come under the control of the POTUS. (That's been known since, in 1977, Adm. Stansfield Turner -- President Carter's DNI -- tried, unsuccessfully, to order firing of CIA employees. Turner had naively assumed that the Secret Government ran according to chain-of-command rules, but if CIA has a chain-of-command, it's a crime even to discuss it.)

We might have discovered if Deep State entities -- like FBI and NSA -- are accountable to the POTUS, if Gen Michael Flynn were still Trump's National Security Advisor. Unfortunately, according to Wikipedia, "Flynn ... briefly served as ... National Security Advisor for President Donald Trump, from January 20 to February 13, 2017. ... Flynn was forced to resign as Trump's National Security Advisor after ... Flynn's tenure of just 24 days."

Gramps, I think you are 100% correct about the importance of the Flynn imbroglio. He had been a total MAGA loyalist throughout the campaign…and then …out the door? Neither of the rationales for his dismissal seemed to hold water to me.

Not only would it NOT be out of line for an 0-9/former DIA Director/incoming Natl. Security Advisor to convey policy messages to a foreign ambassador, it would absolutely be part of his job to do exactly that, if told to do so by the POTUS-elect.

The other “reason” — that he failed to inform the VP of something in a timely manner — doesn’t ring true at all, because an Intel pro like Flynn is used to operating on a need-to-know basis, and VP’s are commonly kept out of the loop. (I recall reading that Truman had never heard of the Manhattan Project until FDR’s death.)

Somehow, eliminating Gen. Flynn was a major cog in this whole treasonous takedown attempt against Trump, and whenever pogues like Clapper and Brennan are shoveling out their $#!t, I notice that the DIA seems to be missing from the “Resistance” lineup. Perhaps that agency, for one, remains loyal to the Republic.

"What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA. What sources? What relationships? What facts?" -- Wizard of Oz

I'm sorry to have to say that my computer used back then, more than ten years ago, died on me and I did not save anything from the HD (disc) memory. Here's what I can tell you, including some facts and relationships, and even some links -- but not a critical source from 2004-2007, although I can describe that source for you.

Here's what I did for my background check:

In or about 2004, I became interested in Obama because he had been selected (over, e.g., Jesse Jackson, Jr.) to run as a Democrat for the open seat in the U.S. Senate. Wikipedia:

The 2004 United States Senate election in Illinois was held on November 2, 2004. Incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald decided to retire after one term. The Democratic and Republican primary elections were held in March, which included a total of 15 candidates who combined to spend a record total of over $60 million seeking the open seat.

State Senator Barack Obama won the Democratic primary and Jack Ryan won the Republican primary. Three months later, Ryan announced his withdrawal from the race ... Six weeks later, the Illinois Republican State Central Committee chose former Diplomat Alan Keyes to replace Ryan as the Republican candidate. The election was the first for the U.S. Senate in which both major party candidates were African American. Obama's 43% margin of victory was the largest in the state history of U.S. Senate elections.. The inequality in the candidates spending for the fall elections – $14,244,768 by Obama and $2,545,325 by Keyes – is also among the largest in history in both absolute and relative terms

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but to me that backgrounder on the Illinois 2004 election could have been headlined, "PATH CLEARED FOR OBAMA". So I wondered, who is this chosen son, Barack Obama? In that frame of mind, I looked up Barack Obama at Wikipedia, There, I found a link to a corporation that had provided Obama's first job directly after graduation at HLS, I followed the link to the corporation's webpage, where it was stated that the corporation was connected with the CIA.

(No one knows how many "private" corporations have been created and funded by the CIA. For example, I have read, in an aviation magazine article, that not only was Evergreen Airline a CIA entity but also a combination of CIA airlines had driven all other private small airlines in USA out of business.)

Unfortunately, as acknowledged supra, I lost the crucial links about Barack's first job after HLS, and current Wiki article on him skips directly from graduation from HLS to "attorney and professor, and taught at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004."

You can find much pertinent information on Obama's father, his mother and his step father.

Wiki on Ann Durham, Barack's mother:

" ... received master of arts (1974) and PhD (1992) degrees, also in anthropology.... she created microcredit programs while working as a consultant for the United States Agency for International Development. Dunham was also employed by the Ford Foundation in Jakarta and she consulted with the Asian Development Bank in Gujranwala, Pakistan." -- Wikipedia

Here again, as for my sources to support my interpretation of the facts, call me a conspiracy theorist, but to me this all reeks of CIA (USAID, Ford Foundation, ADB). Moreover, a friend who dropped out as a grad student at the anthropology department of a prestigious university once informed me that he had quit after being informed by the head of the department that if he wanted to advance at all, he had to accept the opportunity to work with (for) the CIA. CIA operates and recruits extensively in major universities, especially anthropology departments, because these people have beautiful cover in developing nations -- places like Pakistan, Egypt. Nigeria, Bolivia and Honduras.

(Source: FU) I had a source for the information about CIA infiltration of anthropology departments, but that was word of mouth. For all such general and unverifiable sources, I'd like to use a special terminology to designate this kind of thing: "(Source: FU)"

Also, check out for yourself about Ann Durham, especially her years in Indonesia. Or Obama's father, his history back in Kenya.

BTW: I intend no insult to Obama's family -- especially not to his mother -- when I conclude that they were all CIA operatives. As for Obama Sr., I cannot begin to judge him for the deal that he made back in the days of Kenya's very early independence from the UK. (Source: FU) Same, but also with big differences for Barack's step-father: he made his deal in the context of a brutal and corrupt military dictatorship, Indonesia, and he was most likely a double agent. (Source: FU) Who am I to judge?

I am not saying that Obama's mother was a CIA 'Agent', because "Agent" is a special category of the CIA, a special status even, akin to being a commissioned officer in the uniformed services. What I am saying is that they were what I think are called "cut-outs" -- because they are 'cut out' of the herd to be given special opportunities. (Source: FU) Ann Dunham, being originally from Kansas and a solid middle-class background would be perfect, because 'cut outs' were (are) approached -- if they happen(ed) to be Americans -- on the basis of an appeal to their patriotism. (Source:FU) Often, I think, in Ann Dunham's time, they were hipsters with a taste for the exotic and for excitement: they were hipsters who read Hemingway, e.g., "Islands in the Stream". with the final section being an account of the hero's last years serving as a clandestine operative in anti-submarine intelligence and warfare, in Cuba, in 1941. You know, everybody loves a good spy novel. It's fun. (Source: FU)

What was it that I was to prove? Oh, yeah.

"I did a “background check” on Obama ... I had to conclude that Barack was born into a family of CIA operatives and that he had inherited (or been chosen for) membership in that club, which must be many times larger than most Americans would like to think. (“Yes, Virginia, there is a secret government.”) ... So I never expected too much of Obama, and I wasn’t disappointed." -- Grandpa

And wasn’t it convenient that Ryan’s ex “decided” to make public various personal pecadillos just in time to force her former husband to drop out of the race? She couldn’t have cleared the road for Obama any more effectively if she had been driving a bulldozer. Of course, it is understood that a Hollywood actress who obviously achieved stardom on her acting merits alone,

would be shocked – shocked — to her very core when her hubby suggested some unconventional sex antics.

Do us a favour: read it [Madsen's book] and evaluate it for us. -- Wizard of Oz

You know, 'Wizard, I am very far from being any kind of contributor here at UR or anywhere else, although I greatly appreciate the comment discussions and sometimes enjoy participating in them. I don't even do FB! Or Gab, which I just heard of for the first time, here at UR. Mainly, I am just an ordinary citizen, except that I was raised to take the duties of citizenship in our Republic seriously. I am a veteran, a citizen, a resident ... and I was born in USA. So I try to stay up to date with politics. I have found UR to be very helpful as a source of news and analysis.

You should know by now that modesty on a UR thread will probably get you only a vigorous jab with an elbow and old-fashioned good manners will earn incredulity – all the while that our host grits his teeth and continues his steadfast maintenance of a safe place for First Amendment freedom.

I have not accused anyone of criminal acts, because it’s hardly illegal to cooperate with the CIA: OTOH, it may be illegal NOT to cooperate with the CIA, it could even be highly illegal to reveal anything about the CIA. Especially, it could be highly illegal to “out” any CIA operative. Remember the Valerie Plame affair –

My own little old investigation is an instance of the I Ching’s #10, which is translated as “Treading”.

JUDGMENT: “Treading upon the tail of the tiger. … It does not bite the man. Success.”

IMAGE: “Thus the enlightened individual … fortifies the thinking of the people.”

BTW: IMO, the various hexagrams are most correctly described, in English, as patterns. In dealing with a mass of circumstantial evidence, we search out patterns, and that is what juries often do, regardless of the judge’s instructions that each item of evidence should be treated separately.

A Big Lie can be, often is, hidden under the guise of an ostensibly principled but unending search for truth.

And wasn't it convenient that Ryan's ex "decided" to make public various personal pecadillos just in time to force her former husband to drop out of the race? She couldn't have cleared the road for Obama any more effectively if she had been driving a bulldozer. Of course, it is understood that a Hollywood actress who obviously achieved stardom on her acting merits alone,

Sir, you have elevated the level of discourse with your Classical reference, and rescued it from the gutter of prurience toward which I was dragging the commentariat. I thank you for your efforts to lend tone to what was becoming a mere vulgar display!

If such a woman could launch a thousand ships, then she could also stay the launching of a thousand ships, could she not?

Sir, you have elevated the level of discourse with your Classical reference, and rescued it from the gutter of prurience toward which I was dragging the commentariat. I thank you for your efforts to lend tone to what was becoming a mere vulgar display!

Would it be too much of s stretch to link the Pakistani IT guys to the leak of the DNC emails? They seemed to have great access, an insatiable need of money and a lack of morals The Dems don’t want this to surface as it blows their Russiagate narrative to smithereens (not to mention the reputations of more than a handful of House Dems and the DNC leadership). Just think of it: their own lack of security measures combined possibly with some blackmail by the Pakistani IT-ring was behind the leak….At least that scenario would be consistent with the Assange statements.

Use of multiple, non-Anonymous handles for commenting on this webzine is strongly discouraged, and your secret (real or fictitious) email allows you to authenticate your commenter-identity, preventing others from assuming it, accidentally or otherwise.

Therefore, keeping your Name+Email combination is important, and the 'Remember' feature saves it for you as a cookie on your device/browser.

Also, activating the 'Remember' feature enables the Agree/Disagree/LOL/Troll buttons on all comments.

Email Replies to my Comment

Body of Comment

Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter

Though Whitney may be right and we're facing the final countdown, my gut reaction is the opposite. The statement of the US Centcom commanding general before the house that Assad has won is an indication, as is the Russian threat that a false flag is impending, which gives them more cover if they ...

China will launch its third space station in 2020 which will be a permanent alternative to the US-EU-RUS ISS. China, undaunted as usual, aggressively acts on future growth in this sphere.
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-scale-china-space.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/dragonspace.html
NASA was...

And a cheap general is using that what you called dilapidated An26, with his retinue of cheap colonels & specialists.
LoL. Aerospace pro is taking out on cute Panda China when we thrash bear.
So why not reply my question directly?
What the hell is that cheap general & his 30 men flyi...

'...A bear with sharp teeth & claws but only whine regardless of how many thrashing, calling us partner to work under international laws even under our sanctions & containment, is only a good rug for foot.
American has proven many times, Russia is a Paper Bear worst than the Paper Tige...

However…elite fighter pilots would not be coming in on a dilapidated An26 turboprop…
That is not how this type of logistics works…transport jets are used for the simple reason that turboprops have much lower safety…and are also much slower…
And a cheap general is using that what y...

God got tired of the Americans, who have elected every Potus promised peace but more wars to destroy his created products. Oops, god also created Americans, terrorists and other religions, what a bad quality control if not a wilful evil act.
The god in control of US now is the deep states, so ...

There won't be any attack on Syria until at least the North Korean conference is over - and probably some time afterwards as negotiations play out. The Deep State won't like it, but perhaps Putin should make a personal appeal to Trump and offer to work some things out before that time comes (meet...

I agree that there is a build up to an attack on Syria. Americans are being prepared for THE EVENT .
It's already in place judging by the volume of the media orchestra (setting the emotional tone), and THE EVENT is going to justify a full scale missile "response" (attack) from the US navy o...

I didn't state that the US was China's largest trading partner. I stated that the US needs China more than China needs the US, at least in the short term. Go to any retail outlet in America and see what you can buy that isn't made in China.

Anon from TN
I don’t see why not. “Chemical attacks” in Syria were either fakes or false flag operations, where Western-supplied chemicals were used by the head-choppers. Skripal was a false-flag operation, i.e., if there was an operation: at the moment we can’t even be sure that Skripal...

" At least the US brass has some understanding of where the war in Syria could lead. "
That strikes me as being accurate. I thought of that at the time that Obama's proposed air war against Syria was shouted down, supposedly by "the people". I thought that it was probably more a case of mi...

You mean, Russians have a common sense not to destroy the whole planet in response to a provocation by the "exceptional nation" guided by the "most moral" and "most victimized" Israel-firsters? http://www.unz.com/article/the-implications-of-russias-new-weapons/
Sure, Israel is apoplectic and fill...

What a cute pretense of innocence... Here for your education: http://www.unz.com/article/the-implications-of-russias-new-weapons/ "The Implications of Russia's New Weapon Systems"
There are more than 350 comments, up to now. Why are you littering the Unz forum?

"US policy in Syria is altogether a result of Zionist political power in the US and the Likud's obsession with Syria, Hizbullah and Iran" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/03/syria-report-17-march-2018.html#comments

"US policy in Syria is altogether a result of Zionist political power in the US and the Likud's obsession with Syria, Hizbullah and Iran" http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/03/syria-report-17-march-2018.html#comments
An important Question: Where are the American/European Jewi...

You are making assumptions about the military branch of those officers that perished in the crash...
There is no indication they were RuAF...most likely ground forces which are present in much greater numbers in Syria...
Turboprops are not as safe as jets...small airplanes are not as safe a...